On the contrary I have not contributed almost anything in code to Open Source projects yet the four freedoms are so useful to me I simply don't use anything proprietary (besides games).
The four freedoms always help users even if they are not programmers because those freedom ensure you can benefit from changes made by others who do are programmers.
This is so bad I suspect malice over stupidity. Not necessarily paid by MS although I wouldn't put it beyond them. This is just a case of reporters trying to fudge the most sensationalist titles possible.
Why don't they fail in the other direction? No they always have to make it sound worse than what it is.
This "botnet" is only about 100 nodes large, windows botnets are in the hundreds of thousands! But disregard that, from now own every MS shill will point to that article as proof that Linux is not better than Windows, meh didn't the Best Buy brainwashing course state that Windows is more secure than Linux?
Yes, well, I was talking about all the murdering their God commands and often performs himself over often petty and/or completely unfair issues, but yeah that counts too.
The odd thing with Christian nations is that the only reason they are so civil is because of how they fail at religion, the typical American has not read %10 of the bible for instance, yet that doesn't stop Christianity from taking the credit.
Just to nit pick but Hitler was Catholic, Gott mit uns remember? He sought (and got) Papal blessing, he was committed against the theory evolution, his eugenical ideas derived from the idea of a holy race or "choosen people" he didn't even consider Jesus a Jew, preferring to believe in an "Aryan Jesus".
Now, Hitler building a science museum, THAT would have ulterior motives.
Since you have already been modded troll I shouldn't be feeding you but just this time.
Yes they are obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders, to that goal, it makes no sense to release Windows or MS Office as FOSS, that's not what I want, nor what the majority of FOSS users want either. Except for the minority of loons that actually do want that, the majority of FOSS users and developers understand MS is under no obligation to release Windows or MS Office.
Still we need a Free, Open Source operative system and office suite, a non hostile system that doesn't regards its users as thieves by default, An office suit that doesn't antagonize us, insert malicious secret codes in our documents, and OS that has the features we want, not the features someone else wants us to have and be limited to.
So we make our own. No actions from MS are required. But MS has acted. Against us, every time they poison and flood an open standards forum, every time they bribe a politician who is considering going free, every time they they build intentional incompatibilities in their software, every time they scare clients with bogus patent threats, every time they come up with deceiving names to inject noise in the conversation, like.net, like officeopen instead of openoffice, like shared source instead of opens source, and now this fake open source foundation.
That is what we are complaining about, we don't want them to release their products as FOSS, we just want them to stop playing dirty.
Rethink your problem. If the watermark is unremovable and imperceptible to the user then you need special tools to acquire it, nobody has that tools so nobody can check this independently.
So either your problem is that you can't recognize your own stuff (which I assume you do) or that you want to prove to third parties it is your stuff. IF that you only need to do something along the lines of sending it to magnatune or some other respectable company. The fact you have got the oldest copy of a song in the whole Internet, certified by a (or several) respectable companies is enough to prove this song is yours.
If all you want is attribution as you said, that enough. Now if what you really want is knowing which of your clients spread the file (i.e. you're the RIAA) then no that doesn't work.
Indeed as a fan of artificial languages (conlangs constructed languages) I once wanted to see one used for international communications (specifically an IAL international auxiliary language).
Rick Harrison, a prominent figure in the international conlang community wrote an essay on why IAL will never work. Essentially the point is that people don't choose to agree on a common language, instead whoever wants to start conversation learns the other language first.
The up side is that you don't *have* to learn English, just be the best burger seller in your country and McDonald's will send someone to ask to buy your business in *your* own language.
The question is not if old drugs would pass modern test but if old drugs still pass old tests. Old drugs not making it pass modern tests can mean just better tests.
This is what I find hilarious about the whole deal. It's 1984, a book about the dangers of total information control. What does Amazon does to people reading about abusive exploitation of power to control information? It abuses their power to delete the book. Readers were hysterical. Of course deleting any book would cause that but 1984? Just pure, solidified metallic iron.
I guess if they had deleted, the Wall Disney guide to copyright, the buyers would actually be delighted to have their books being remotely deleted.
Now you are asking me to explain a cultural phenomenon in isolation of its source culture? Are you even trying to make sense?
Let me guess, you refuse to change a broken light bulb because there is no formal rule set to disambiguate which one is broken whether the bulb or the light?
Are you saying that a psychologist would not use the word "evil" himself or that he would deny that people use the word "evil"? Because that's what you are implying.
Of course corporations cannot be objectively a sociopath, what I say is that there is a common sense approach to interpret the statement "Corporation X is evil". But then against I understand why you can't understand this, you lack common sense.
I think most ethicists, behavioral psychologists and anthropologists would agree that evil means antisocial behavior.
Profit maximization at the expense of international civil rights and freedoms can easily be identified as evil.
Just for contrast, I don't anybody can honestly call the FSF or the EFF evil regardless of their position. Loonies? Innocent losers without a grasp of reality? I'm sure their enemies have many ways to rationalize it, but evil, nah. Corporations know evil intimately.
What? If Richard Gere doesn't preach it, it is not Buddhism to me!
But does it prescribe killing of homosexuals? If not, then my comment stands uncorrected and Buddhism stands on the same level of bigotry than modern Christianity, because we are comparing ancient Buddhism to modern Christianity aren't we?
Because the moment you mention "The Inquisition" it's game over.
And the Bible of christianity does command you to kill homosexuals, but then retracts its word.
What about Jainism? What about everything else? The claim "any religion except Christianity" is still bullshit.
*****The term "any religion" is limited to 3 religions because Buddhism, Jainism, Wicca and other shit makes Christianity look like the work of a psychopath.
I'm suspicious about this "Christian Science Monitor" if it's scientific why not just call it "Science Monitor"? And if it modifies its views to accommodate Christianity can it really call itself scientific?
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary I have not contributed almost anything in code to Open Source projects yet the four freedoms are so useful to me I simply don't use anything proprietary (besides games).
The four freedoms always help users even if they are not programmers because those freedom ensure you can benefit from changes made by others who do are programmers.
But you are a troll aren't you? You don't care.
This is so bad I suspect malice over stupidity. Not necessarily paid by MS although I wouldn't put it beyond them. This is just a case of reporters trying to fudge the most sensationalist titles possible.
Why don't they fail in the other direction? No they always have to make it sound worse than what it is.
This "botnet" is only about 100 nodes large, windows botnets are in the hundreds of thousands! But disregard that, from now own every MS shill will point to that article as proof that Linux is not better than Windows, meh didn't the Best Buy brainwashing course state that Windows is more secure than Linux?
Yes, well, I was talking about all the murdering their God commands and often performs himself over often petty and/or completely unfair issues, but yeah that counts too.
The odd thing with Christian nations is that the only reason they are so civil is because of how they fail at religion, the typical American has not read %10 of the bible for instance, yet that doesn't stop Christianity from taking the credit.
Just to nit pick but Hitler was Catholic, Gott mit uns remember? He sought (and got) Papal blessing, he was committed against the theory evolution, his eugenical ideas derived from the idea of a holy race or "choosen people" he didn't even consider Jesus a Jew, preferring to believe in an "Aryan Jesus".
Now, Hitler building a science museum, THAT would have ulterior motives.
Since you have already been modded troll I shouldn't be feeding you but just this time.
Yes they are obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders, to that goal, it makes no sense to release Windows or MS Office as FOSS, that's not what I want, nor what the majority of FOSS users want either. Except for the minority of loons that actually do want that, the majority of FOSS users and developers understand MS is under no obligation to release Windows or MS Office.
Still we need a Free, Open Source operative system and office suite, a non hostile system that doesn't regards its users as thieves by default, An office suit that doesn't antagonize us, insert malicious secret codes in our documents, and OS that has the features we want, not the features someone else wants us to have and be limited to.
So we make our own. No actions from MS are required. But MS has acted. Against us, every time they poison and flood an open standards forum, every time they bribe a politician who is considering going free, every time they they build intentional incompatibilities in their software, every time they scare clients with bogus patent threats, every time they come up with deceiving names to inject noise in the conversation, like .net, like officeopen instead of openoffice, like shared source instead of opens source, and now this fake open source foundation.
That is what we are complaining about, we don't want them to release their products as FOSS, we just want them to stop playing dirty.
Surely you mean downgraded, right?
Oh, you mean a religious AI? rimshot
Rethink your problem. If the watermark is unremovable and imperceptible to the user then you need special tools to acquire it, nobody has that tools so nobody can check this independently.
So either your problem is that you can't recognize your own stuff (which I assume you do) or that you want to prove to third parties it is your stuff. IF that you only need to do something along the lines of sending it to magnatune or some other respectable company. The fact you have got the oldest copy of a song in the whole Internet, certified by a (or several) respectable companies is enough to prove this song is yours.
If all you want is attribution as you said, that enough. Now if what you really want is knowing which of your clients spread the file (i.e. you're the RIAA) then no that doesn't work.
MOD PARENT UP
I have the theory MOD PARENT UP actually works, maybe... next time I have mod point I'll look for MOD PARENT UP
Indeed as a fan of artificial languages (conlangs constructed languages) I once wanted to see one used for international communications (specifically an IAL international auxiliary language).
Rick Harrison, a prominent figure in the international conlang community wrote an essay on why IAL will never work. Essentially the point is that people don't choose to agree on a common language, instead whoever wants to start conversation learns the other language first.
The up side is that you don't *have* to learn English, just be the best burger seller in your country and McDonald's will send someone to ask to buy your business in *your* own language.
The question is not if old drugs would pass modern test but if old drugs still pass old tests. Old drugs not making it pass modern tests can mean just better tests.
This is what I find hilarious about the whole deal. It's 1984, a book about the dangers of total information control. What does Amazon does to people reading about abusive exploitation of power to control information? It abuses their power to delete the book. Readers were hysterical. Of course deleting any book would cause that but 1984? Just pure, solidified metallic iron.
I guess if they had deleted, the Wall Disney guide to copyright, the buyers would actually be delighted to have their books being remotely deleted.
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=282
Enough said.
owosh!
Now you are asking me to explain a cultural phenomenon in isolation of its source culture? Are you even trying to make sense?
Let me guess, you refuse to change a broken light bulb because there is no formal rule set to disambiguate which one is broken whether the bulb or the light?
There I go again feeding the trolls.
Are you saying that a psychologist would not use the word "evil" himself or that he would deny that people use the word "evil"? Because that's what you are implying.
Of course corporations cannot be objectively a sociopath, what I say is that there is a common sense approach to interpret the statement "Corporation X is evil". But then against I understand why you can't understand this, you lack common sense.
I think most ethicists, behavioral psychologists and anthropologists would agree that evil means antisocial behavior.
Profit maximization at the expense of international civil rights and freedoms can easily be identified as evil.
Just for contrast, I don't anybody can honestly call the FSF or the EFF evil regardless of their position. Loonies? Innocent losers without a grasp of reality? I'm sure their enemies have many ways to rationalize it, but evil, nah. Corporations know evil intimately.
Yeah well I'm a web developer and now I can't make a page like AltaVista's without hiring a Design Patent lawyer.
The two pages look pretty much the same to me. Given Google's patent It would be illegal to make a page like AltaVista's right now.
Stop sleeping, now.
What? If Richard Gere doesn't preach it, it is not Buddhism to me!
But does it prescribe killing of homosexuals? If not, then my comment stands uncorrected and Buddhism stands on the same level of bigotry than modern Christianity, because we are comparing ancient Buddhism to modern Christianity aren't we?
Because the moment you mention "The Inquisition" it's game over.
And the Bible of christianity does command you to kill homosexuals, but then retracts its word.
What about Jainism? What about everything else? The claim "any religion except Christianity" is still bullshit.
Nice you mention that because Gargoyles (and to a lesser extent, Pirates of ...) is the only good thing to ever come out of Disney.
*****The term "any religion" is limited to 3 religions because Buddhism, Jainism, Wicca and other shit makes Christianity look like the work of a psychopath.
MOD PARENT UP
I'm suspicious about this "Christian Science Monitor" if it's scientific why not just call it "Science Monitor"? And if it modifies its views to accommodate Christianity can it really call itself scientific?
And more importantly why do you use "right" when you mean "rait"? Phonetic spelling is superior in my opinion.